Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday September 17 2016, @04:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the on-extraditing-Love dept.

BBC reports:

An autistic man suspected of hacking into US government computer systems is to be extradited from Britain to face trial, a court has ruled. Lauri Love, 31, who has Asperger's Syndrome, is accused of hacking into the FBI, the US central bank and the country's missile defence agency. Mr Love, from Stradishall, Suffolk, has previously said he feared he would die in a US prison if he was extradited.

Also at Ars Technica , The Guardian , and Reuters . Here is the judgment against Love (PDF).


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday September 17 2016, @09:13PM

    by Francis (5544) on Saturday September 17 2016, @09:13PM (#403226)

    Why would that matter?

    Jurisdiction in cases like this is tricky because the crime can reasonably said to be committed either where the computers that were broken into were located or where the attacker was located. And probably you could make an argument for a third country if there was an intermediary computer somewhere else used.

    This isn't like normal crimes where you can say with reasonable certainty where the crime was committed, these computer crimes are effectively committed in multiple locations at the same time.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by zeigerpuppy on Sunday September 18 2016, @12:23AM

    by zeigerpuppy (1298) on Sunday September 18 2016, @12:23AM (#403252)

    That's a very dangerous precedent.
    Up until now criminal proceedings have respected the idea of jurisdiction.
    This is a massive power grab by the US.
    If he committed a crime he should be charged by the laws of his own land, not those of another (unless of course he is visiting such said nation).
    Or else the UK has effectively ceded sovereignty to the US.

    • (Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday September 18 2016, @02:05AM

      by Francis (5544) on Sunday September 18 2016, @02:05AM (#403267)

      It's not a dangerous precedent to set. You've always been prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the crime took place.

      He is alleged to have broken into servers that were in the control of the US federal government, why shouldn't he be tried in the US? Don't want to be tried in the US? Don't commit crimes in the US. It's not like he didn't know where the servers were.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 18 2016, @05:50AM

        by frojack (1554) on Sunday September 18 2016, @05:50AM (#403304) Journal

        The point is moot.

        He's already admitted the crime, he's now just hoping to get off with a sympathy defense based on his disease.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday September 18 2016, @11:01AM

        by Arik (4543) on Sunday September 18 2016, @11:01AM (#403330) Journal
        It's a dangerous precedent to set to say that a person sitting in country A, breaking no laws in country A, is nonetheless subject to the laws of country B.

        The language has to be perverted for this to sustain the laugh test. So you speak of him 'breaking into servers.' Breaking, really? He had a crowbar that reached across the Atlantic?
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday September 18 2016, @12:12PM

          by Francis (5544) on Sunday September 18 2016, @12:12PM (#403340)

          First off, you keep using the phrase "set precedent" and it's quite clear you have no idea what you're talking about. There's plenty of precedence for people being tried in other countries for things they did abroad. The US regularly tries it's own citizens for bribing foreign officials. There was that guy in BC that was prosecuted for sending pot seeds into the US using the mail.

          Secondly, how precisely do you enforce the law if people are allowed to break it by locating themselves overseas? It's one thing if those people are engaged in activities in foreign lands and with items that are located there. I don't expect to be arrested for badmouthing the king of Thailand here in the US as I have no reason to believe that this server is in Thailand.

          But, if I broke into a server in Thailand to post graffiti on their websites, that is something that should lead to the possibility of being extradited. It's kind of a toss up whether the US authorities would consider it to be a breach of human rights and refuse the extradition request, but the crime itself was committed in Thailand under this scenario and they'd be the appropriate venue for resolving it.

          Just because you choose to be oblivious to the consequences of letting people break the laws of foreign lands via this technicality doesn't make it reasonable. Cracking and malware are largely a problem because certain nations don't have or enforce laws against the activities when directed at third party nations. Waiting for the Russians or the Chinese to start arresting people for cracking systems in foreign lands is ridiculous. They aren't going to extradite them either, but should those individuals wind up in a country that will extradite them, then they should be extradited to stand trial.

          In this case, he could have easily avoided being tried in the US had he just not broken into US servers in the US. Break into UK servers in the UK and you can be tried in the UK. Break into foreign servers and you should be tried in that locality. Otherwise, what incentive would there be for the authorities to even bother prosecuting the crime? His crime didn't harm the UK in any meaningful way other than embarrass them a bit and cause the diplomats to have to rush in and work things out.

          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday September 18 2016, @12:37PM

            by Arik (4543) on Sunday September 18 2016, @12:37PM (#403346) Journal
            "it's quite clear you have no idea what you're talking about."

            Quite clear is it? That your final answer?

            "There's plenty of precedence for people being tried in other countries for things they did abroad."

            There's some and it's been a source for serious concern. We don't need more.

            "The US regularly tries it's own citizens for bribing foreign officials."

            That's not the same case at all. That's a US Citizen in the US doing something against US law. Even if he can prove he wasn't in the country at the moment the bribe was paid he would certainly have had to take some actions inside the US to facilitate it.

            "There was that guy in BC that was prosecuted for sending pot seeds into the US using the mail."

            Emery et. al? They cut everyone else loose very quick and even he wound up with a plea. A great case study in malicious prosecution, btw. The pleas reached themselves demonstrate that the base charges were brought in bad faith.

            "Secondly, how precisely do you enforce the law if people are allowed to break it by locating themselves overseas?"

            As I do not fetishize control of other human beings behavior, I feel no need to 'enforce the law' per se. Some laws are surely necessary, but I'm having a hard time thinking of one that doesn't have a physical component. And I am not a fan of thoughtcrime.

            "I don't expect to be arrested for badmouthing the king of Thailand here in the US as I have no reason to believe that this server is in Thailand."

            You don't know where this server is, you aren't supposed to need to know, and anyway all we need is 1 reader in Thailand and a sufficiently powerful official with a grudge to see this tested.

            "But, if I broke into a server in Thailand to post graffiti on their websites, that is something that should lead to the possibility of being extradited. "

            Again, where do you find these transcontinental crowbars? How is it possible for you to 'break into' something without ever setting foot on the same continent where it exists? Why do you do such violence to the language rather than saying clearly what you mean?

            "Cracking and malware are largely a problem because certain nations don't have or enforce laws against the activities when directed at third party nations."

            Ah. We may have just found the key to your confusion.

            This is complete and utter bullshit.

            These things are problems because commonly used software is insecure by design.

            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday September 19 2016, @01:00AM

            by dry (223) on Monday September 19 2016, @01:00AM (#403568) Journal

            That guy in BC, Marc Emery, is a good example of an illegal extradition. When the government can illegally ship the leader of a political party (or was that ex-leader?) to another country in the name of being tough on crime, there's something seriously wrong.
            Extradition treaties usually include clauses where the crime has to exist in both jurisdictions and the punishment roughly comparable. In the case of Marc Emery, he was sent to America when the government knew he was facing years in prison for what in Canada was a ticket-able offence with perhaps a couple of hundred dollar fine.
            Comparable would be America extraditing you for saying something bad about the King of Thailand on a Thai server, something that is Constitutionally protected in America.
            I don' know much about this case but America does have a habit of inappropriately punishing people for embarrassing the government, even when their Bill of Rights says the government had no right to even pass the law.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @05:27AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @05:27AM (#403300)

      That's a very dangerous precedent.
      Up until now criminal proceedings have respected the idea of jurisdiction.
      This is a massive power grab by the US.

      Here's another more dangerous precedent: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-11/accused-russian-hacker-on-tropical-holiday-nabbed-by-u-s-agents [bloomberg.com]
      And another:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMas0tWc0sg#t=1m00s [youtube.com]

      I'd be less unhappy about it if the USA were really the good guys but they definitely aren't. Don't get me started on that.

      There are bankers and finance people who have done more damage to the US and the world, there's even more blood on their hands. Money laundering, theft, fraud and what happens to them? Nothing.